Working in the medical field does not only mean solving complex clinical cases associated with severe illnesses. It also includes the ethical dilemmas faced by both experienced doctors and young nursing staff. These involve controversial situations related to the life and well-being of the patient. Such situations are formulated by actions in relation to the patient, which may be prohibited in some countries. They are euthanasia, abortion, and the treatment of certain mental illnesses with powerful antipsychotics or sedatives. The aim of the work is to analyze the ethical problem of medicine, such as euthanasia, and consider it as an example of a specific situation.
The current ethical problem arose when mortification began to be used as a way to alleviate the suffering for the patient. Euthanasia is the voluntary suspension of a patient’s life due to the inability to live normally because of illness [4]. As a rule, the cause of such radical action is unbearable pain or a lifestyle that brings more suffering than if one were mercy-killed [1]. This procedure has several controversial aspects, expressed mainly in the decision about euthanasia. Besides, there are two types of euthanasia, and the first type is the passive one, namely, surceasing the life-sustaining therapy for the patient. The second type is active euthanasia when the patient is administered a life-shortening drug.
However, the main point of dispute is manifested in the decision, which can be taken by both the patient and a third party in the event of an unconscious state of the case. Many argue that any intentional termination of a patient’s life is a violation of medical morality and the basic principle of the work of healthcare, namely the preservation of life [5]. Moreover, when choosing euthanasia by relatives, the ethical problem is that the person who is deprived of life is not given the right to vote. No one will ever know whether the person really wanted to alleviate one’s suffering or whether one was ready to fight and hope for recovery. The specific situation to analyze is formulated by the terminally ill patient with cancer who struggles with severe pain and is unconscious.
In this case, the main point of dispute is the obligation of doctors to provide high-quality healthcare services and the desire of the patient. Thereby, no one can say veraciously whether a life-saving medical service is of high quality and honest if the patient does not want it and if the living conditions are painful. On the other hand, in some cases, the patient may experience a clouding of mind, and if life is saved, when relief comes, the case will be grateful to the doctors. In the case of a clouded mind, no one can say whether the patient’s or third party’s request for euthanasia is legal. It formulates a paradox when one cannot come to the only correct solution.
Speaking about different views on euthanasia, the utilitarian versus Kantian point of view is worth noting. These views are opposite, arguing the position from a philosophical perspective. Thus, the utilitarian viewpoint implies that it is fair and necessary to allow an individual to have euthanasia made of their own free will. Certainly, it is expected in the case when the patient experiences torment during life and when one has the desire for death in order to relieve pain and discomfort. Moreover, the patient may experience suffering due to thoughts about making others care for one them. Finally, when the diagnosis implies death and no other outcome, euthanasia may be a better option for the patient than waiting for death.
In contrast, the Kantian point of view implies that this procedure undermines the concept of a personality. Kant believed that by endorsing suicide or euthanasia, one violates the basic principles of a person’s life [3]. This view correlates with many claims that euthanasia violates a person’s fundamental right to life. The dispute is especially urgent in the case when the decision about euthanasia is made by a third party [2]. Thus, the patient is deprived of the right to vote. However, no one can take a person’s life. There is debate as to whether the third party’s decision is reasonable enough and whether the relatives know the patient enough to reach such conclusions.
The preliminary option may be formulated by interviewing several members of the patient’s family about the decision to euthanasia. It is articulated by the fact that the patient is unconscious, and it is necessary to collect enough information about the habits and wishes of the person. Possible problems may be the relatives’ dissatisfaction with this procedure of voting and collecting information. It can be resolved by informing the relatives that this process is the only one morally possible to make the right decision. Accordingly, the final solution will be made based on the vote of relatives or good friends. This way, one will be able to collect enough opinions and information about the patient to make the right decision.
References
Devos, T. Euthanasia: Searching for the full story: experiences and insights of Belgian doctors and nurses. Springer Nature, 2021.
Gray, S., Ferris, L., White, L. E., Duncan, G., Baumle, W. Foundations of Nursing: Enrolled Nurses. Cengage AU, 2018.
Hartling, O. Euthanasia and the Ethics of a Doctor’s Decisions: An Argument Against Assisted Dying. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2021.
Kimuyu, P. The euthanasia debate: Major arguments and religious perspectives. GRIN Verlag, 2018.
Ziebertz, H, Zaccaria, F. Euthanasia, abortion, the death penalty and religion – the right to life and its limitations: International empirical research. Springer, 2018.